PDA

View Full Version : McCAIN not a natural born citizen?



Soflasnapper
01-31-2011, 09:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Who (what) is this guy?


The birth records from the Panama Department of Health do not contain the name of John Sidney McCain, III. Those records (in book form) are retained by the National Archives.


The omission cannot be dismissed as a simple, bureaucratic “snafu” for several reasons. The U.S. Naval Hospital at Coco Solo, Panama, could not have been the “birthplace” of JS McCain III, who was purportedly born in 1936. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Executive Order 8981 - Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone,” was signed December 17, 1941. It authorized the creation of the base hospital boundaries entitled, “Boundary Map of Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone.”


The land surveys for the hospital construction had been completed in May, 1941, nearly five years after the birth of JS McCain III. The base had no hospital in 1936, so McCain could not have been born on U.S. sovereign territory, even if the base was leased.


So, where was JS McCain III born? Who were his parents? Who were his grandparents? Who were his great grandparents? A sufficient lack of evidence proves that four generations of “McCains” cannot prove that they are McCains.</div></div>

Three stooges go to Washington (http://web.me.com/donnicoloff/directlightproductions.com/Articles/Entries/2008/6/24_The_Three_Stooges_go_to_Washington%2C_Part_2.ht ml)

Although many knew that McCain was supposed to have been born in Panama, he never was asked to show HIS birth certificate. I've read he showed it to several people, but it wasn't made public at any time.

This particular author may be nuts or not, I have no idea. However, the argument and the evidence he describes has the FORM of a reasonable discussion, and I've seen others make the point contained in the quote above.

In other articles you can find here, he takes the birther view of Obama as well as mentioning what I'd never heard of, a birth certificate issue with Eisenhower.

LWW
02-01-2011, 04:06 AM
Oh please.

The left has trotted this out every election for a s far back as I can remember ... and it only died down in the 08 cycle when it became apparent that dear leader had far more serious questions on the topic.

I'll refer to James Madison ... primary author of the COTUS so I hope you won't question his credentials ... who stated that natural citizenship could be applied to an individual at birth under 2 circumstances:

1 - Birth location. Under this criteria, John Sidney McCain III is not eligible and Barack Hussein Obama Junior doesn't want anyone to know if he is or isn't.

2 - Parentage. Under this criteria, John Sidney McCain III is eligible as he was the offspring of 2 US citizens, and Barack Hussein Obama Junior isn't.

Your desperation is showing my friend.

LWW

eg8r
02-01-2011, 07:51 AM
Jeesh, can you believe it. We would have been going through this same thing no matter who won the election. Pretty crazy.

eg8r

pooltchr
02-01-2011, 08:09 AM
Not really. Physical location at the time of birth is not a determining factor <u>if </u>both parents are US citizens.

Steve

LWW
02-01-2011, 11:09 AM
Excellent post.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-01-2011, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Who (what) is this guy?


The birth records from the Panama Department of Health do not contain the name of John Sidney McCain, III. Those records (in book form) are retained by the National Archives.


The omission cannot be dismissed as a simple, bureaucratic “snafu” for several reasons. The U.S. Naval Hospital at Coco Solo, Panama, could not have been the “birthplace” of JS McCain III, who was purportedly born in 1936. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Executive Order 8981 - Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone,” was signed December 17, 1941. It authorized the creation of the base hospital boundaries entitled, “Boundary Map of Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone.”


The land surveys for the hospital construction had been completed in May, 1941, nearly five years after the birth of JS McCain III. The base had no hospital in 1936, so McCain could not have been born on U.S. sovereign territory, even if the base was leased.


So, where was JS McCain III born? Who were his parents? Who were his grandparents? Who were his great grandparents? A sufficient lack of evidence proves that four generations of “McCains” cannot prove that they are McCains.</div></div>

Three stooges go to Washington (http://web.me.com/donnicoloff/directlightproductions.com/Articles/Entries/2008/6/24_The_Three_Stooges_go_to_Washington%2C_Part_2.ht ml)

Although many knew that McCain was supposed to have been born in Panama, he never was asked to show HIS birth certificate. I've read he showed it to several people, but it wasn't made public at any time.

This particular author may be nuts or not, I have no idea. However, the argument and the evidence he describes has the FORM of a reasonable discussion, and I've seen others make the point contained in the quote above.

In other articles you can find here, he takes the birther view of Obama as well as mentioning what I'd never heard of, a birth certificate issue with Eisenhower. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">As far as I know, we don't even have a birth announcement, from a local news source, where McCain was born, LMAO!

This entire "birther Nonsense" is one of the most distinctive representations of radical RW lies and insanity, of all, and there are many from which to choose.

Oh well, gotta give the little people, something irrelevant, to yap about.</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
02-01-2011, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Oh well, gotta give the people, something irrelevant, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

And you succeed to that end better than anyone I know!

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh please.

The left has trotted this out every election for a s far back as I can remember ... and it only died down in the 08 cycle when it became apparent that dear leader had far more serious questions on the topic.

I'll refer to James Madison ... primary author of the COTUS so I hope you won't question his credentials ... who stated that natural citizenship could be applied to an individual at birth under 2 circumstances:

1 - Birth location. Under this criteria, John Sidney McCain III is not eligible and Barack Hussein Obama Junior doesn't want anyone to know if he is or isn't.

2 - Parentage. Under this criteria, John Sidney McCain III is eligible as he was the offspring of 2 US citizens, and Barack Hussein Obama Junior isn't.

Your desperation is showing my friend.
</div></div>

The left has trotted this out every election for a s far back as I can remember

You must mean ONCE, in 2000? For whether he was born in the country or not doesn't matter unless he's running for president. It wouldn't have been an issue to talk about except for races for the nomination for the presidency, and he ran only once before this last time.

I'll refer to James Madison ... primary author of the COTUS so I hope you won't question his credentials

As you surely know, what he may have said is not taken as definitive, and (perhaps up to) a half dozen other theories are in play. He did not settle the question as far as everyone is concerned (nor could he, since we do not confer Papal level infallibility to any of our leader's pronouncements). The CONSTITUTION itself could prove something about this question, but while it uses the term, it leaves it undefined. Hence, the many theories.

Your desperation is showing my friend.

<u>MY</u> DESPERATION? I phrase the topic as a question, and admit I don't know whether the author is a nut or not.

My true point, as eg8r picked up, was that an apparently (whether it is or isn't) rational, evidence-based argument can be made as to McCain having the same or worse defect in his naturalbornhood as that alleged to be the case for O, with far more evidence against McCain than against O. And, most particular, that even with the knowledge of McCain's foreign birth, his birth certificate was never sought, demanded of him, nor made public.

s

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 01:22 PM
And it is obvious enough that if the claim is McCain was born at the base hospital at Coco Solo (whatever), IF THAT HOSPITAL HADN'T BEEN BUILT UNTIL 5 YEARS AFTER McCAIN'S BIRTH, that is a clear lie.

WHY would he lie? (but wait, is that true or not?)

Never had any such national discussion.

Gayle in MD
02-01-2011, 03:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh please.

The left has trotted this out every election for a s far back as I can remember ... and it only died down in the 08 cycle when it became apparent that dear leader had far more serious questions on the topic.

I'll refer to James Madison ... primary author of the COTUS so I hope you won't question his credentials ... who stated that natural citizenship could be applied to an individual at birth under 2 circumstances:

1 - Birth location. Under this criteria, John Sidney McCain III is not eligible and Barack Hussein Obama Junior doesn't want anyone to know if he is or isn't.

2 - Parentage. Under this criteria, John Sidney McCain III is eligible as he was the offspring of 2 US citizens, and Barack Hussein Obama Junior isn't.

Your desperation is showing my friend.
</div></div>

The left has trotted this out every election for a s far back as I can remember

You must mean ONCE, in 2000? For whether he was born in the country or not doesn't matter unless he's running for president. It wouldn't have been an issue to talk about except for races for the nomination for the presidency, and he ran only once before this last time.

I'll refer to James Madison ... primary author of the COTUS so I hope you won't question his credentials

As you surely know, what he may have said is not taken as definitive, and (perhaps up to) a half dozen other theories are in play. He did not settle the question as far as everyone is concerned (nor could he, since we do not confer Papal level infallibility to any of our leader's pronouncements). The CONSTITUTION itself could prove something about this question, but while it uses the term, it leaves it undefined. Hence, the many theories.

Your desperation is showing my friend.

<u>MY</u> DESPERATION? I phrase the topic as a question, and admit I don't know whether the author is a nut or not.

My true point, as eg8r picked up, was that an apparently (whether it is or isn't) rational, evidence-based argument can be made as to McCain having the same or worse defect in his naturalbornhood as that alleged to be the case for O, with far more evidence against McCain than against O. And, most particular, that even with the knowledge of McCain's foreign birth, his birth certificate was never sought, demanded of him, nor made public.

s </div></div>

Don't you just love it when the right brings up James Madison, lol.


They really like tpo pick and choose, their false ideologies, incorrectly based on the Founders, don't they?

Take, for example, their twisted ideas about religion, the Founders of the Constitution, and the separation of church and state.

Direct references to separation:


The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:


Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform </span>(Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
Against establishment of religion


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821). </span>Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.</span> It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

If the Church of England had been the established and general religion and all the northern colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the continent, it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insulated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence and ecclesiastical establishments tend to grate ignorance and corruption all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects (Letter to William Bradford, Jan. 24, 1774).

[T]he prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that religion could not be preserved without the support of government nor government be supported without an established religion that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North America to bring the great and interesting subject to a fair, and finally a decisive test.
It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.

But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

LWW
02-01-2011, 05:15 PM
Be honest:

1 - You have no idea who James Madison really was.

2 - You have never read the Federalist Papers.

3 - You have never read the Anti-Federalist Papers.

4 - You have never read the writings of Thomas Paine ... or Jeffereson ... or Franklin ... or anyone other than what has been approved by dear leader.

LWW

Chilled
02-01-2011, 07:36 PM
Court cases against McCain in respect of his eligibility were actually instigated by people who cannot be described as being on the left.

According to this link, the case filer Hollander was a registered Republican. On the left?

http://aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1727&posts=2

The first case was filed in California by Andrew Aames, a lawyer in Riverside, California. The case was Inland Empire Voters v. U.S.A. et al. Andrew Aames was a registered Republican. On the left?

http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/category/andrew-aames/

A third case was filed in California by Markham Robinson, of the American Independent Party – the party which nominated Alan Keyes. On the left?

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 07:45 PM
Quite so.

In fact, the guy to whose piece I linked also names BO and even Eisenhower (really, you outta read those couple of articles!) as having quite fraudulent biographies and bc records.

I'd characterize that man as a full-mooner, but from the right side of things.

Actually, McCain's problem has mainly always been from the right, as in the very nasty attacks he's born from Vietnam vet groups, Col. David Hackworth who publicly wrote of McCain's treason, and etc.

JohnnyD
02-01-2011, 09:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Be honest:

1 - You have no idea who James Madison really was.

2 - You have never read the Federalist Papers.

3 - You have never read the Anti-Federalist Papers.

4 - You have never read the writings of Thomas Paine ... or Jeffereson ... or Franklin ... or anyone other than what has been approved by dear leader.

LWW </div></div>Very interesting.Thank you.

LWW
02-02-2011, 04:22 AM
And your flaw in logic is that you assume the R's to be on the right.

They are "on the right" compared to the D's in the same manner as Nevada is "in the east" compared to California.

LWW

hondo
02-02-2011, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeesh, can you believe it. We would have been going through this same thing no matter who won the election. Pretty crazy.

eg8r </div></div>

I doubt it, Eg. The Dems aren't that petty. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Soflasnapper
02-02-2011, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jeesh, can you believe it. We would have been going through this same thing no matter who won the election. Pretty crazy.

eg8r </div></div>

I doubt it, Eg. The Dems aren't that petty. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

Or, when the fix is in, they stay fixed.

McCain sailed over a sea of troubles without a hitch, since he was a war hero by being a traitor (for starters).

None of that really got brought up (it wouldn't be polite or something), and McCain himself called the media 'my base,' so slavering and sycophantic they were towards him. He served stiff mixed drinks, swore a lot in private with them, and nobody wanted to give him much of a hard time about any of the skeletons in his closet.

LWW
02-02-2011, 02:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain sailed over a sea of troubles without a hitch, since he was a war hero by being a traitor (for starters). </div></div>

I hope you have some actual ... defined as non non moonbat crazy leftist lies supported by nothing deeper than partisan hate ... to substantiate such a charge?

LWW

Chilled
02-02-2011, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And your flaw in logic is that you assume the R's to be on the right.

They are "on the right" compared to the D's in the same manner as Nevada is "in the east" compared to California.

LWW </div></div>

Obviously right or left are relative terms depending on where you put the centre. That's not the point.

I didn't say they were "on the right". You're the one who made the claim that "the left" have been at this stuff for years in the context of elections.

It's merely been shown to you that the three eligibility cases against McCain were taken out by two registered Republicans and one gentleman who was probably even further to the right relative to the average Republican (irrespective of where you put the "centre").

Let's put it this way.....in the context of anti-right activity at election times, which was your original point about what "the left" does and when they do it, no honest person could claim that the three gentlemen concerned were likely intending to vote Democrat. Therefore they at the very least seem to buck the trend you claimed that anti-McCain eligibility court cases were a symptom of.

hondo
02-02-2011, 05:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And your flaw in logic is that you assume the R's to be on the right.

They are "on the right" compared to the D's in the same manner as Nevada is "in the east" compared to California.

LWW </div></div>

Obviously right or left are relative terms depending on where you put the centre. That's not the point.

I didn't say they were "on the right". You're the one who made the claim that "the left" have been at this stuff for years in the context of elections.

It's merely been shown to you that the three eligibility cases against McCain were taken out by two registered Republicans and one gentleman who was probably even further to the right relative to the average Republican (irrespective of where you put the "centre").

Let's put it this way.....in the context of anti-right activity at election times, which was your original point about what "the left" does and when they do it, no honest person could claim that the three gentlemen concerned were likely intending to vote Democrat. Therefore they at the very least seem to buck the trend you claimed that anti-McCain eligibility court cases were a symptom of. </div></div>

Excellent post!

JohnnyD
02-02-2011, 05:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=eg8r]Jeesh, can you believe it. We would have been going through this same thing no matter who won the election. Pretty crazy.

eg8r </div></div>

I doubt it, Eg. The Dems aren't that petty. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif [/quote
In poor taste.

Soflasnapper
02-02-2011, 05:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain sailed over a sea of troubles without a hitch, since he was a war hero by being a traitor (for starters). </div></div>

I hope you have some actual ... defined as non non moonbat crazy leftist lies supported by nothing deeper than partisan hate ... to substantiate such a charge?

LWW </div></div>

Col. David Hackworth was the most decorated veteran of Vietnam. He, like McCain's fellow Hanoi Hilton pow detainees, knew of McCain's collaboration with the enemy, giving aid and comfort, i.e., treason per se, when he went far beyond 'name, rank and serial number' information, as in the 30+ propaganda film clips he participated in, falsely 'admitting' to war crimes acts and condemning US actions. More than that, he gave the exact ingress and egress routes for the bombers, and with that information, aircraft losses from enemy fire increased so greatly that many men and planes were lost, and those sorties had to be ended.

Wrong to play the 'hero' card (http://www.hackworth.com/25jan00.html)

LWW
02-03-2011, 03:51 AM
You have obviously never read the UCMJ.

And, sadly, this doesn't surprise me.

LWW

LWW
02-03-2011, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Wrong to play the 'hero' card (http://www.hackworth.com/25jan00.html)

</div></div>

That link was just precious.

Oddly, Hackworth never backed up your claim that McCaim committed treason.

All he did was make a reference to a VN vet who said he did this.

I recall the vet who made this claim, but not his name. The moonbat crazy left kept referring to his "ORGANIZATION" ... which was only him.

LWW

LWW
02-03-2011, 04:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[he went far beyond 'name, rank and serial number' information

</div></div>

And this is what happens when someone gets their information from Hollywood.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-03-2011, 01:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Wrong to play the 'hero' card (http://www.hackworth.com/25jan00.html)

</div></div>

That link was just precious.

Oddly, Hackworth never backed up your claim that McCaim committed treason.

All he did was make a reference to a VN vet who said he did this.

I recall the vet who made this claim, but not his name. The moonbat crazy left kept referring to his "ORGANIZATION" ... which was only him.

LWW </div></div>

His inclusion of that quote means nothing? He didn't have to put it in there, and including it WITHOUT ATTACKING it, or denying it, is his tacit endorsement.

Or why else did he mention it?

Soflasnapper
02-03-2011, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[he went far beyond 'name, rank and serial number' information

</div></div>

And this is what happens when someone gets their information from Hollywood.

LWW </div></div>

If you meant to correct this to be 'name, rank, <u>service</u> number <u>and date of birth</u>,' congratulations, you have made a minor but accurate correction.

If you meant this to mean US servicemen under the UCMJ at that time were not bound to give only this information, then you are quite wrong. Perhaps you've only read it after Carter's revision in '77 or so? But that didn't apply to McCain or anyone serving in Vietnam.

pooltchr
02-03-2011, 03:44 PM
As a Viet Nam era vet, I can tell you that the UCMJ does not limit what POWs may or may not say in captivity. There is a code of conduct and even that does not limit POWs to that specific information. There are certain circumstances that require the POW to use their own judgement to deal with different situations. One of those situations would be when continued silence could jeopardize the lives of other servicemen.
As the highest ranking officer in the camp, McCain would have been in the position to make that call.

The UCMJ is the document that outlines the proceedures to be used when dealing with anyone in the military charged with breaking the law, or violating any orders. It is nothing more than the rules that outline how a civilian court of law operates, only applied to the military.

If you are interested, you can read the UCMJ here

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

Steve

LWW
02-04-2011, 05:41 AM
Somehow, I doubt that he is.

I am not a fan of McCain's politics ... but it sickens me whenever I heard people insult his service record.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 12:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a Viet Nam era vet, I can tell you that the UCMJ does not limit what POWs may or may not say in captivity. There is a code of conduct and even that does not limit POWs to that specific information. There are certain circumstances that require the POW to use their own judgement to deal with different situations. One of those situations would be when continued silence could jeopardize the lives of other servicemen.
As the highest ranking officer in the camp, McCain would have been in the position to make that call.

The UCMJ is the document that outlines the proceedures to be used when dealing with anyone in the military charged with breaking the law, or violating any orders. It is nothing more than the rules that outline how a civilian court of law operates, only applied to the military.

If you are interested, you can read the UCMJ here

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

Steve </div></div>

I read BOTH versions already (pre- and post-Vietnam), but thanks for the link.

McCain was NOT the ranking officer as a captain (couple of colonels present there were that).

Casually mentioning the order of battle of his bomber complement, how they came into their targets, etc., to a foreign journalist in the presence of the enemy captors was a violation that cannot be spun or explained away. Same thing when he signed confessions and appeared in taped propaganda films over 30 times. Why do you think his code name from those people was 'Songbird'?

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Immediately following communist Vietnam's release of American prisoners of war, a number of senior ranking former POWs sought to court martial eight enlisted former POWs, accusing them of mutiny, treason and openly selling out their fellow prisoners in return for soft treatment from their prison guards, collaborating with their captors to the point of wearing North Vietnamese uniforms and seeking permission to join the North Vietnamese Army.

Again an emotional and public debate was sparked as to what action, if any, should be taken against the former prisoners. One side of the debate, which included some former prisoners of war, advocated a "forgive and forget" policy.

The other side, also including some former prisoners of war, demanded the military penalize those who had "undermined discipline" by their collaboration. The debate, however, was quickly muted when one of the enlisted men charged with collaborating committed suicide.

Within days of the suicide, the secretaries of the Army and Navy decided to drop all charges against the enlisted men, declaring there was not enough evidence against the accused prisoners to warrant court martial proceedings.

Military sources defended the Pentagon's decision to drop the charges claiming a "lack of legally sufficient evidence and because of the policy of the Department of Defense against holding trials for alleged propaganda statements."

In dismissing the charges, Army Secretary Howard H. Callaway said, "We must not overlook the good behavior of these men during the two to three years each spent under brutal prison conditions in South Vietnam, before they were moved to the North--the lack of food and medical care, the sub-primitive living conditions and the physical torture. "They had a very hard time and they behaved admirable during this period."

Three months later, Navy Secretary John W. Warner dropped misconduct charges against two other ex-prisoners, both officers who had been accused of "mutiny, aiding the enemy and failing to obey an order."

Again a Presidential commission was appointed. It reevaluated the code of 1955 in 1976, recommending a subtle revision to Article V which, in its original form, stated: When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am bound to only give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

The word "bound" was changed to "required" and the word "only" was deleted. After President Carter ordered the change in 1977, a Navy spokesman explained. "The feeling was to make it more reasonable. You can only take so much . . . They don't expect you to be a superman, or superwoman, or superhuman."

But in 1979, after Marine private Bobby Garwood managed to slip a note out of Hanoi stating that he was still being held prisoner of the communists and that he knew of 15 other U.S. prisoners, the Pentagon quickly disregarded its concern for how much a POW is supposed to be able to take and temporarily reverted back to the old code.

After the Vietnamese finally released Garwood, the Marine Corps tried him for treason, desertion, and collaboration. Garwood, who had spent 14 years as a prisoner of the communists, was convicted of collaboration. He was forced to forfeit all back pay and given a dishonorable discharge.</div></div>

US Veterans Dispatch (http://www.usvetdsp.com/story12.htm)

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 01:27 PM
And what does this have to do with McCain? To the best of my knowledge, no charges were ever brought against him, and there was no court martial.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to share it.
Otherwise, you are making charges with no basis in fact.

McCain spent over 5 years as a POW under conditions I suspect you can not even begin to comprehend. I wonder how long you would have lasted under the same conditions.

Steve

LWW
02-04-2011, 04:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain was NOT the ranking officer as a captain (couple of colonels present there were that).</div></div>

That's funny.

A "CAPTAIN" in the USN is an )-6 rank. A Chicken Colonel in the USAF, USMC, and US Army are all an O-6 as well.

IOW ... a Naval Captain is a de facto Colonel.

LWW

LWW
02-04-2011, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what does this have to do with McCain?

Steve </div></div>

It means he can't face the fact that he, in conspiracy with many on the left, has slimed a military hero.

LWW

LWW
02-04-2011, 04:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But in 1979, after Marine private Bobby Garwood managed to slip a note out of Hanoi stating that he was still being held prisoner of the communists and that he knew of 15 other U.S. prisoners, the Pentagon quickly disregarded its concern for how much a POW is supposed to be able to take and temporarily reverted back to the old code.

After the Vietnamese finally released Garwood, the Marine Corps tried him for treason, desertion, and collaboration. Garwood, who had spent 14 years as a prisoner of the communists, was convicted of collaboration. He was forced to forfeit all back pay and given a dishonorable discharge.</div></div>

WOW!

Just WOW!

An actual review (http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/659.pdf) found that Garwood:

1 - Collaborated with NVN from 1965 to 1973.

2 - Stayed behind in NVN after release in 1973.

3 - His stories of left behnd POW's were baseless.

4 - A search 1n 1979 could not find the buildings Garwood said housed POW's.

5 - Several POW's testified to Garwood's collaboration during the 1965-1973 era.

6 - A second search could not find the buildings.

7 - A third search could not find the buildings.

Which probably explains why Garwood was a hero of the left back then. He was the Jesse MacBeth of the Viet Nam War.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 05:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain was NOT the ranking officer as a captain (couple of colonels present there were that).</div></div>

That's funny.

A "CAPTAIN" in the USN is an )-6 rank. A Chicken Colonel in the USAF, USMC, and US Army are all an O-6 as well.

IOW ... a Naval Captain is a de facto Colonel.

LWW </div></div>

Well, and for all of that, and regardless, here's what McCain told a fellow prisoner at the time:

"Our senior ranking officer is Colonel Larson," McCain said.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/m...l#ixzz1D2CtGug1 (http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter3.html#ixzz1D2CtGug1)

So at least McCain wasn't under the impression that he out-ranked Larson in that setting. Likely because he was a lieutenant commander, an 0-4. (Don't believe everything you read on a blog entry.)

LWW
02-05-2011, 03:51 AM
Give it up ... you said he was a captain which was outranked by a colonel.

You also ran out a traitor as a supposed hero and victim.

The truth of the matter is that McCain was offered early release and refused.

You my friend are blinded by partisan hatred to the point that it has removed all logic from your side of the discussion.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-05-2011, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> and nobody wanted to give him much of a hard time about any of the skeletons in his closet.
_________________________
</div></div>

AND, there were MANY!

Soflasnapper
02-05-2011, 11:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Give it up ... you said he was a captain which was outranked by a colonel.

You also ran out a traitor as a supposed hero and victim.

The truth of the matter is that McCain was offered early release and refused.

You my friend are blinded by partisan hatred to the point that it has removed all logic from your side of the discussion.

LWW </div></div>

LOL! Yeah, getting to captain was a later promotion. When he was shot down, he was a lt. commander. Had my characterization of his rank at that time been correct, then your (true) point would have been relevant. Since I was wrong, your (true) point doesn't apply.

McCain explained his refusal to take early release better than his advocates. He admitted that protocol called for first into captivity, first to be released, that the three who were released were known by all to be first on the list, and that he had no choice under regular procedure.

LWW
02-05-2011, 12:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Give it up ... you said he was a captain which was outranked by a colonel.

You also ran out a traitor as a supposed hero and victim.

The truth of the matter is that McCain was offered early release and refused.

You my friend are blinded by partisan hatred to the point that it has removed all logic from your side of the discussion.

LWW </div></div>

LOL! Yeah, getting to captain was a later promotion. When he was shot down, he was a lt. commander. Had my characterization of his rank at that time been correct, then your (true) point would have been relevant. Since I was wrong, your (true) point doesn't apply.</div></div>

That is just precious.

You claimed that a naby captain was an inferipr rank to an Army colonel ... which was wrong.

You were the only one to float the idea that McCain was the senior officer.

And from that you claim the more accurate position?

You are entered the Gayle Zone of logic now.

LWW

LWW
02-05-2011, 12:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain explained his refusal to take early release better than his advocates. He admitted that protocol called for first into captivity, first to be released, that the three who were released were known by all to be first on the list, and that he had no choice under regular procedure. </div></div>

Now you are being silly again.

For your statement to be true we muct accept that John McCain was dictating to the NVNese who was released and in what order.

WOW!~ Just WOW!

In all seriousness ... what motivates you to descend into such illogic against a man who endured more suffering for his citizenship in a day than you will in 100 lifetimes?

LWW

Stretch
02-05-2011, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain explained his refusal to take early release better than his advocates. He admitted that protocol called for first into captivity, first to be released, that the three who were released were known by all to be first on the list, and that he had no choice under regular procedure. </div></div>

Now you are being silly again.

For your statement to be true we muct accept that John McCain was dictating to the NVNese who was released and in what order.

WOW!~ Just WOW!

In all seriousness ... what motivates you to descend into such illogic against a man who endured more suffering for his citizenship in a day than you will in 100 lifetimes?

LWW </div></div>

Was it supose to be a sympathy vote? St.

LWW
02-05-2011, 01:19 PM
Your question makes no sense?

A sympathy vote for what?

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-05-2011, 03:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain explained his refusal to take early release better than his advocates. He admitted that protocol called for first into captivity, first to be released, that the three who were released were known by all to be first on the list, and that he had no choice under regular procedure. </div></div>

Now you are being silly again.

For your statement to be true we muct accept that John McCain was dictating to the NVNese who was released and in what order.

WOW!~ Just WOW!

In all seriousness ... what motivates you to descend into such illogic against a man who endured more suffering for his citizenship in a day than you will in 100 lifetimes?

LWW </div></div>

What I said is a paraphrase from McCain's own words. Surely you don't doubt that hero?

LWW
02-05-2011, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain explained his refusal to take early release better than his advocates. He admitted that protocol called for first into captivity, first to be released, that the three who were released were known by all to be first on the list, and that he had no choice under regular procedure. </div></div>

Now you are being silly again.

For your statement to be true we muct accept that John McCain was dictating to the NVNese who was released and in what order.

WOW!~ Just WOW!

In all seriousness ... what motivates you to descend into such illogic against a man who endured more suffering for his citizenship in a day than you will in 100 lifetimes?

LWW </div></div>

What I said is a paraphrase from McCain's own words. Surely you don't doubt that hero? </div></div>

Link me to the quote you were paraphrasing.

LWW